Another thread about forgetting to pay for something at the grocery store

[Tea Time]

In the past month I have been to Walmart twice.

 

The first time I got home and realized that I had been charged twice for a large rug that I purchased. I had to go back to get it removed from my credit card.

 

The second time I got home from the store and realized that one of the bags did not make it into the shopping cart. It had two, very small items which should have been put in one of the other bags rather than put in a separate bag and never put in the cart. I had to go back again to get the items, which had been returned to the shelves. No, they did not take the items off my credit card when they gave them back to themselves, although they certainly have the technology to do that.

 

I thought stealing was characterized by intention and is not just an error. It never occurred to me to call the police, but if this is how it is played, then maybe it should have! :mad:

[AndyJoy]

So, my kids are welcome to nosh on bananas while shopping at Trader Joes (sold by the banana) but not anywhere else (sold by the lb).;)

 

My ds gets a banana every time we go grocery shopping, but I get it at the end and don't let him eat it until after I've paid. They are sold by the pound at our store, but I actually had a clerk tell me I could just let him eat a banana earlier and she'd just weigh another one in its place! :001_huh: I don't think this is a good idea, though!

 

When I was pregnant I never opened anything before paying for it. I would pay for the item, keep the receipt, and consume while shopping. However, when I checked out with the rest of my groceries I would get lots of suspicious looks and/or snarky, "Do I need to ring that up?" comments from the cashiers. Sometimes I would even comment, "I already paid for this," while holding my receipt and still get suspicious looks, like maybe I had a fake receipt to bolster my story!

 

However, I do let ds open snacks in the store before paying on occasion (or he's gotten something open when my back was turned!) I shop at the same grocery store and have NEVER gotten a single rude comment or look when I do this and pay at the end! It is obviously expected that customers will do this at my store.

[jennynd]

In this instance, the husband was with her and "also" had a sandwich...

IMO, I don't believe two people can both "forget" to pay. I understand that the wife is preg and dizzy need food, but I don't understand why the un-pregnant husband also eat and also forget..:confused::confused:

They have 1 kid with them not 5...

[angela in ohio]

When I was pregnant I never opened anything before paying for it. I would pay for the item, keep the receipt, and consume while shopping. However, when I checked out with the rest of my groceries I would get lots of suspicious looks and/or snarky, "Do I need to ring that up?" comments from the cashiers. Sometimes I would even comment, "I already paid for this," while holding my receipt and still get suspicious looks, like maybe I had a fake receipt to bolster my story!

 

I worked the register in a large local family-owned "general store" that had groceries. this was about a dozen years ago. People didn't eat things before they paid for them. They would sometimes bring something up to the register to pay before they ate it in the store. We would tape the receipt to it for them, so that it was clear they had paid.

[Joker]

In this instance, the husband was with her and "also" had a sandwich...

IMO, I don't believe two people can both "forget" to pay. I understand that the wife is preg and dizzy need food, but I don't understand why the un-pregnant husband also eat and also forget..:confused::confused:

They have 1 kid with them not 5...

 

What I read said they were new to the area, took a bus, got lost, and ended up at the SafeWay. They were all hungry and he grabbed two sandwiches that they snacked on while they shopped. They intended to pay upon checkout.

 

In my area (and the one I grew up in) this would be considered no big deal and is even encouraged. Dh has been with me when dds have picked up gelato at Whole Foods and he doesn't pay before I am ready to check out. Many places, at least the ones I frequent, don't seem to think it's wrong to eat before paying. It could have been an honest mistake, or not, but I really can't believe they didn't just let them pay this time since it was such a small amount. If it happened again, I could see calling in the police.

[Guest submarines]

In this instance, the husband was with her and "also" had a sandwich...

IMO, I don't believe two people can both "forget" to pay. I understand that the wife is preg and dizzy need food, but I don't understand why the un-pregnant husband also eat and also forget..:confused::confused:

They have 1 kid with them not 5...

 

Maybe one of them was habitually absent minded, and the other was stressed because they just moved to Hawaii, still had no car, ended up walking in a new place for 2 miles, and who knows what was on their minds. Maybe they were focused on figuring out which bus to take home?

 

There are many perfect posters here--the ones who would never be hungry at the store (or if they are, they'd just stoically remain hungry), the ones who never forget anything, the ones with perfect, never whining, never hungry children who are always happy to eat their home-made snacks.

 

However most people are quite imperfect, and end up in situation they'd rather not be. I'd rather not judge. But then I'm one of the imperfect ones.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Maybe one of them was habitually absent minded, and the other was stressed because they just moved to Hawaii, still had no car, ended up walking in a new place for 2 miles, and who knows what was on their minds. Maybe they were focused on figuring out which bus to take home?

 

There are many perfect posters here--the ones who would never be hungry at the store (or if they are, they'd just stoically remain hungry), the ones who never forget anything, the ones with perfect, never whining, never hungry children who are always happy to eat their home-made snacks.

 

However most people are quite imperfect, and end up in situation they'd rather not be. I'd rather not judge. But then I'm one of the imperfect ones.

 

Nonsense. Obviously all of us are imperfect. But there are real life consequences for real life decisions. Sometimes those consequences can be trying (though the consequences in this country are very minor compared to what it could have been in some countries).

[Joker]

But there are real life consequences for real life decisions. Sometimes those consequences can be trying (though the consequences in this country are very minor compared to what it could have been in some countries).

 

I totally agree but everything I've read states it was $5 worth of sandwiches (that they intended to pay for and had cash for) so I cannot wrap my brain around arresting two people and removing their child for the night.

[Meriwether]

Nonsense. Obviously all of us are imperfect. But there are real life consequences for real life decisions. Sometimes those consequences can be trying (though the consequences in this country are very minor compared to what it could have been in some countries).

:iagree:I've been hungry while shopping many times. My kids have been hungry while shopping. They don't whine, though, because I always answer that we can't eat until we pay. I've never considered that stoicism. We also don't eat while I am cooking supper. Telling the kids they have to wait 30-45 minutes to eat while shopping doesn't seem all that different than telling them they have to wait that long until supper. I forget things all the time but not food I've eaten in the store because I don't do that. If you (general you) think it is okay to eat in the store, have at it. If everyone in your area does it, fine and dandy. But I have never been in a position where it has been necessary. And I've had days when I've run errands for 6-7 hours with very small children.

[Scarlett]

However most people are quite imperfect, and end up in situation they'd rather not be. I'd rather not judge. But then I'm one of the imperfect ones.

 

Another imperfect poster here who has eaten before paying many many times.

 

I also cannot wrap my mind around arresting two people over $5 worth of merchandise especially when it was not clear that their intent was to steal. And especially when they had a young child with them with no where else to go.

[Scarlett]

:iagree:I've been hungry while shopping many times. My kids have been hungry while shopping. They don't whine, though, because I always answer that we can't eat until we pay. I've never considered that stoicism. We also don't eat while I am cooking supper. Telling the kids they have to wait 30-45 minutes to eat while shopping doesn't seem all that different than telling them they have to wait that long until supper. I forget things all the time but not food I've eaten in the store because I don't do that. If you (general you) think it is okay to eat in the store, have at it. If everyone in your area does it, fine and dandy. But I have never been in a position where it has been necessary. And I've had days when I've run errands for 6-7 hours with very small children.

 

Well, I doubt I would ever consider it necessary. But hey, I also eat while cooking and let my ds sneak a bite too if he is starving. I guess I'm soft that way.

 

I just can't see the big deal and until I have a store clerk/manager tell me to pay first I will probably continue with my unnecessary practice of eating before I pay.

[Impish]

Another imperfect poster here who has eaten before paying many many times.

 

I also cannot wrap my mind around arresting two people over $5 worth of merchandise especially when it was not clear that their intent was to steal. And especially when they had a young child with them with no where else to go.

Intent doesn't matter when it comes to the police making an arrest. In court, intent can have an impact, but its not up to the arresting officer to decide if someone intended to commit a crime, just that there is, indeed, an indictable offence that's been committed.

 

I wonder how many regular shoplifters the average person would be able to determine intent for. Probably very, very few.

[Scarlett]

Intent doesn't matter when it comes to the police making an arrest. In court, intent can have an impact, but its not up to the arresting officer to decide if someone intended to commit a crime, just that there is, indeed, an indictable offence that's been committed.

 

I wonder how many regular shoplifters the average person would be able to determine intent for. Probably very, very few.

 

 

 

Yeah, I just don't believe that. Police make judgments of intent all of the time. As do store clerks and managers.

[silliness7]

Whether it's the store policy or not, it's my feeling on the matter and what my kids get to live with. ;)

 

I can see how others differ, and I can understand how there are those who can eat in the store, before it's paid for and feel OK about it. I can't. And I know myself well enough to know that I'd mess up and end up stealing at least once. This is a relatively simple precaution that keeps my honesty in one piece, and apparently it's also safer for my family, since a $5 crime seems to be grounds for CPS stealing children these days. For that reason alone, I feel justified in the "we always wait" rule.

 

 

Absolutely!!! You are quite justified in your personal standard of always waiting. Your post that I was commenting on made it sound like you wanted to take it further than your own personal standard for your own family despite stores being quite fine with it so long as people paid for it at the end of their shopping trip. I'm sorry if I misread your intention. :001_smile:

[Joker]

Yeah, I just don't believe that. Police make judgments of intent all of the time. As do store clerks and managers.

 

:iagree:I've been pulled over for making a wrong turn (about 15 yrs ago) and for going through a stop sign (about 5 yrs ago) but have never received a ticket. I was let off both times w/a warning due to me not having other citations. Police can make judgement calls and I don't think both parents should have been taken into custody in this instance.

[silliness7]

In the past month I have been to Walmart twice.

 

The first time I got home and realized that I had been charged twice for a large rug that I purchased. I had to go back to get it removed from my credit card.

 

The second time I got home from the store and realized that one of the bags did not make it into the shopping cart. It had two, very small items which should have been put in one of the other bags rather than put in a separate bag and never put in the cart. I had to go back again to get the items, which had been returned to the shelves. No, they did not take the items off my credit card when they gave them back to themselves, although they certainly have the technology to do that.

 

I thought stealing was characterized by intention and is not just an error. It never occurred to me to call the police, but if this is how it is played, then maybe it should have! :mad:

 

I like the way you think. :D

 

*Not* that that justifies stealing of any kind. Stores rip people off all the time so it's O.K. if I eat this banana without paying. No. That's wrong! I am not saying that.

 

But if the grocery store is going to overcharge customers maybe we should be hauling off some checkers in handcuffs. Or store managers. But we don't. We smile and ask for our money back (if, *if* we catch it)and they give us our money back and nobody goes to jail. There's a novel idea. Hey you screwed up you owe me $x. Woops, sorry. Here's your $x. Common sense. common sense.

[Impish]

:iagree:I've been pulled over for making a wrong turn (about 15 yrs ago) and for going through a stop sign (about 5 yrs ago) but have never received a ticket. I was let off both times w/a warning due to me not having other citations. Police can make judgement calls and I don't think both parents should have been taken into custody in this instance.

Difference is, the store wanted to press charges. They called the police and reported a crime.

 

A speeding ticket is very different.

 

If someone calls, says someone has broken into their house, the police come out, make an arrest...the WHY of breaking into the house doesn't matter, if the home owner wishes to press charges. If someone steals a car to rush someone else to the hospital, the why of stealing the car doesn't matter if the owner wants to press charges.

 

That's where intent doesn't factor in until a court hearing.

[Scarlett]

Difference is, the store wanted to press charges. They called the police and reported a crime.

 

A speeding ticket is very different.

 

If someone calls, says someone has broken into their house, the police come out, make an arrest...the WHY of breaking into the house doesn't matter, if the home owner wishes to press charges. If someone steals a car to rush someone else to the hospital, the why of stealing the car doesn't matter if the owner wants to press charges.

 

That's where intent doesn't factor in until a court hearing.

 

You cannot compare breaking into someone's house and accidentally walking out of a store having failed to pay for an item.

[Scarlett]

Difference is, the store wanted to press charges. They called the police and reported a crime.

 

A speeding ticket is very different.

 

If someone calls, says someone has broken into their house, the police come out, make an arrest...the WHY of breaking into the house doesn't matter, if the home owner wishes to press charges. If someone steals a car to rush someone else to the hospital, the why of stealing the car doesn't matter if the owner wants to press charges.

 

That's where intent doesn't factor in until a court hearing.

 

One time my XH was a contact for a friend's alarm system. He got a call from the alarm system and went to the house....police showed up.....they didn't arrest my XH....because they used their common sense to to determine XH was NOT breaking into the house.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I like the way you think. :D

 

*Not* that that justifies stealing of any kind. Stores rip people off all the time so it's O.K. if I eat this banana without paying. No. That's wrong! I am not saying that.

 

But if the grocery store is going to overcharge customers maybe we should be hauling off some checkers in handcuffs. Or store managers. But we don't. We smile and ask for our money back (if, *if* we catch it)and they give us our money back and nobody goes to jail. There's a novel idea. Hey you screwed up you owe me $x. Woops, sorry. Here's your $x. Common sense. common sense.

 

Actually, that's not totally true. If someone overcharges me and I ask nicely for the money back and they say "no", I have recourse. I can go to my credit card company if that is how I paid and contest the charges. I can complain to management. I can take them to small claims court.

 

Now - I agree that the store seemed to take this too far. But we don't really know the situation as it played out. We weren't observing them as mostly likely store personnel were for some time before they even walked out that door (otherwise how would they even know that there was a wrapper stuck down there in the cart). We don't know how it really played out (facial expressions, tone of voice etc.) when they were confronted. All of those things add up to a gut reaction for how a manager handles something. We also don't know how it played out once the police were called in. Yes, the store says that they regret what happened but we really don't know what that means either - do they regret the bad publicity or do they really think that the store manager came down hard on innocent people who just forgot to pay for some sandwiches?

 

There are all sorts of laws governing things like misdemeanors that most of the time do not trigger consequences. There are things like speeding or not making a complete stop at a stop sign that you probably get away with 90% of the time unless you happen to be seen by a police officer. Sometimes it just seems like bad luck when you do get busted but the law was there all along. It's just that sometimes we have to pay up.

 

I was in a car with a lady that I worked with a long time ago. She got pulled over for having expired tabs on her license plate. I honestly think she would have gotten nothing but a warning but she got all self righteous with the officer and things went from bad to worse. By the end, she had not only a fine, but a much bigger one than if she had just handled the situation with some humility. I don't know about this couple, but I have a sneaking feeling that there is a lot that we're missing that caused the situation to snowball from bad to worse.

[Impish]

One time my XH was a contact for a friend's alarm system. He got a call from the alarm system and went to the house....police showed up.....they didn't arrest my XH....because they used their common sense to to determine XH was NOT breaking into the house.

The homeowner wasn't pressing charges. There wasn't a complainant involved.

 

The store was the complainant. The store wanted to press charges. That is where the police do not use intent to determine to press charges. They left without paying, therefore, it is an indictable offence.

 

It has to do with someone lodging a complaint and wanting charges pressed in this situation, not with intent.

 

If someone steals baby formula b/c they can't afford to purchase it, it isn't any less shoplifting than someone that swipes a diamond bracelet from the jewelery store b/c they like bling. Sure, the *intent* is vastly different, however, both are theft.

[LisaKinVA]

I have a sneaking feeling that there is a lot that we're missing that caused the situation to snowball from bad to worse.

 

I don't. :D

 

I've been on the receiving end of store managers who feel the need to "throw their weight around." And even when nothing illegal actually happen not receive an apology, or the manager even back down. 'Course I wound up going up the chain later and the manager was "removed" from her position. ;)

 

So no, a store manager going to the extreme of prosecuting both parents, insisting that they BOTH be arrested at the SAME time, and forcing the police to put their child into protective custody for the accused "theft" of a 2-for-1 sandwich special totaling $5... strikes me more as a store manager who was on a power trip.

 

The above were reportedly options given the store manager to deal with it... not prosecute, or even arrest one now and arrest one later (thus eliminating the CPS issue), but the store manager refused.

 

Even if the store had some sort of zero-tolerance policy, the police gave the store manager a viable alternative, which would have met the "letter" of the arguable "store policy" of zero-tolerance (both parties being arrested), and he insisted that they BOTH be arrested at. that. time.

[silliness7]

Actually, that's not totally true. If someone overcharges me and I ask nicely for the money back and they say "no", I have recourse. I can go to my credit card company if that is how I paid and contest the charges. I can complain to management. I can take them to small claims court.

 

 

You are right. The store can't get away with overcharging people. In fact, there is a law in my state which my bil got to profit from recently. If a merchant overcharges you and you catch it and ask for a refund they must refund you 10x the amount (I believe it's 10x) but capped at a dollar amount. I can't remember the exact amount. Theft goes the other way too. I just wanted to point out that if the store overcharges someone the cops don't get involved. We recognize that it was an honest mistake. But laws on the books like the one in my state confirm that these honest "mistakes" are happening too frequently and they are WRONG. And frankly some merchants engage in tactics which are not terribly honest, imo. Pet peeve: stores which have an item on sale in a specially marked bin but also place very similar items NOT on sale in the same bin. A local grocery here does this ALL the time. Drives me crazy. I try never to go there unless it's an emergency. Total tangent: I LOVE checking myself out in those self-check lanes because I can make sure everything is ringing up exactly what it's supposed to ring up.

 

Anyway, with stores in my state required to refund over and above, it's a kind of a fine, but paid to the consumer. I would rather see forgetful shoppers fined 10x the amount of their would-be purchase instead of arrested.

[kalanamak]

loss prevention employee !

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I never saw this ridiculous phrase until today (it was in a court document, and the unfortunate l.p.e was bonged on the noggin). When did this insult the English language come into common use?

 

(And speaking of coincidences, I looked up Frank Thornton on google, last night and found that he'd been in a Taming of the Shrew with John Cleese in 1980. Who'da thunk it! And this morning, when I quoted something from Midsummer Night's Dream, one of the nurses suddenly said he'd seen a terrific Taming on DVD recently: 1980 John Cleese.)

[Joanne]

For those who believe in the that it was totally overboard, that the couple was, in fact, innocent, that it was no big deal:

 

Would you feel the same way about an item(s) with a bigger price tag? Let's say a couple made their way out of a store with a hand held electronic toy (one they had given their child to play with in the store), and the $100 device got inadvertantly hidden during check out?

 

What is the cut-off, standard or dividing line for you?

 

That they were new in town, pregnant, with a toddler?

That they offered to pay (that is the least convincing for me, btw - who *wouldn't offer to pay in that circumstance)?

That the items totaled about $5?

That eating in stores is, at least in some cases, encouraged?

 

To me, they stole. It might not have been intentional. But they DID. Even if eating in that store is okay, encouraged, and sanctioned. They stole. At what point is the Store Manager and Police supposed to know and act on intent of other people? Is a $5 theft less of a theft? So much so that it is not theft?

[Murmer]

I don't. :D

 

I've been on the receiving end of store managers who feel the need to "throw their weight around." And even when nothing illegal actually happen not receive an apology, or the manager even back down. 'Course I wound up going up the chain later and the manager was "removed" from her position. ;)

 

So no, a store manager going to the extreme of prosecuting both parents, insisting that they BOTH be arrested at the SAME time, and forcing the police to put their child into protective custody for the accused "theft" of a 2-for-1 sandwich special totaling $5... strikes me more as a store manager who was on a power trip.

 

The above were reportedly options given the store manager to deal with it... not prosecute, or even arrest one now and arrest one later (thus eliminating the CPS issue), but the store manager refused.

 

Even if the store had some sort of zero-tolerance policy, the police gave the store manager a viable alternative, which would have met the "letter" of the arguable "store policy" of zero-tolerance (both parties being arrested), and he insisted that they BOTH be arrested at. that. time.

 

I wanted to highlight this part. The police did give options to the store that would not result in the child being taken and yet still allow the store to prosecute for shoplifting. Yes it was stealing none the less the reaction of removing a child from their parents for 18 hours, when the parents were only in custody for about 3 is a gross over reaction. Ever hear of making the consequence fit the crime. This was 5 dollars in merchandise and yet a child was removed from the only people she knew for 18 hours. That is the part that is wrong. The parents accidentally stole something but that does not mean that a child should be removed from their custody over 5 dollars in sandwiches. That is why Safeway says they may have over reacted...because they were given options that would have still ended in arresting for shoplifting but not had the child removed and the manager did not, he was wrong too just as the couple was wrong for eating and not paying.

[unsinkable]

Yeah, I just don't believe that. Police make judgments of intent all of the time. As do store clerks and managers.

 

Yes. I agree. I said this in the last thread about this topic.

 

Police HAVE and DO use their discretion in arrests. They are not robots.

[vonfirmath]

I'm wondering how long this takes? If my baby is screaming, I want to quiet her then, not let her continue to cry or fuss or whatnot for the 10 minutes it would take to get to the front and pay. I can't imagine doing that, I would just leave instead, rather than subject the store to my child fussing/crying. But maybe you don't have such long lines at your grocery stores. Here it takes quite a while to check out.

 

The length of the lines depends on the time of day, etc.

 

If the baby was screaming though, I suspect you'd find someone willing to let you go ahead to get your stuff faster!

 

Actually, more recently, I DID shop with a baby who was working herself up to a scream because she was hungry and I didn't have a bottle in the cart. I still would never dream of opening the bottle in the store and feeding her. I'd go, wait in line, pay and THEN feed her. That does avoid situations like this, where one can "Forget" to pay for something. (or find that you don't have the money on you that you thought you did, etc. In which case we'd leave and go home. and yes, listen to crying baby the whole way if for some reason I messed up and did not have anything in the car for them.)

[QueenCat]

Yes it was stealing none the less the reaction of removing a child from their parents for 18 hours, when the parents were only in custody for about 3 is a gross over reaction. Ever hear of making the consequence fit the crime. This was 5 dollars in merchandise and yet a child was removed from the only people she knew for 18 hours. That is the part that is wrong. The parents accidentally stole something but that does not mean that a child should be removed from their custody over 5 dollars in sandwiches. That is why Safeway says they may have over reacted...because they were given options that would have still ended in arresting for shoplifting but not had the child removed and the manager did not, he was wrong too just as the couple was wrong for eating and not paying.

 

Although I think they should have taken only one of the parents, we have NO way of knowing that it was "accidental". People OFTEN say it was an accident or they forgot in the hopes of not getting arrested, even for small items, and yes, even if they pay for other items.

[LisaKinVA]

Would you feel the same way about an item(s) with a bigger price tag? Let's say a couple made their way out of a store with a hand held electronic toy (one they had given their child to play with in the store), and the $100 device got inadvertantly hidden during check out?

 

 

It's not the dollar amount that makes this situation over-the-top, it's the response of the manager. He was given options that still would have resulted in parents being arrested and charged, but would NOT have resulted in the child being taken away. He refused *any* option, but having the child taken away and the parents arrested on. the. spot.

 

And, while honest mistakes happen often (and it's not about the price), people should be given an opportunity to correct them.

 

I've been a store owner whose store was ripped off quite frequently. People were stealing STICKERS (expensive stickers, but still STICKERS). We have prosecuted for shoplifting. We have also given a person the benefit of the doubt, and taken payment.

 

In this case, the store had a deli cash-register that was unmanned. The people attempted to pay then and there, but they couldn't and decided to wait (I don't know where the other registers were, but I'm guessing they were more than a few steps away). If their account is true, I'm sure there is a nice video shot of them at the deli cash register looking around, and then walking away. They didn't throw the wrappers away. They sounded pretty embarrassed. And, IMO, the POLICE were on their side (they asked the manager not to prosecute, etc...), and were embarrassed to be arresting the couple. IMO, the POLICE would not have made those suggestions (having more experience dealing with crafty shoplifters), if they felt it was *anything* than an honest mistake.

 

So no... the dollar amount wouldn't have mattered. Police usually have a 6th sense about these things, although concealing a $100 toy a child was playing with would be a pretty neat trick.

[FaithManor]

For those who believe in the that it was totally overboard, that the couple was, in fact, innocent, that it was no big deal:

 

Would you feel the same way about an item(s) with a bigger price tag? Let's say a couple made their way out of a store with a hand held electronic toy (one they had given their child to play with in the store), and the $100 device got inadvertantly hidden during check out?

 

What is the cut-off, standard or dividing line for you?

 

That they were new in town, pregnant, with a toddler?

That they offered to pay (that is the least convincing for me, btw - who *wouldn't offer to pay in that circumstance)?

That the items totaled about $5?

That eating in stores is, at least in some cases, encouraged?

 

To me, they stole. It might not have been intentional. But they DID. Even if eating in that store is okay, encouraged, and sanctioned. They stole. At what point is the Store Manager and Police supposed to know and act on intent of other people? Is a $5 theft less of a theft? So much so that it is not theft?

 

 

I agree, but what I think people are reacting to is the extreme. I liken it to railing against a violation of the laws of physics. For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

The child was taken into custody for 18 hrs. and as we all know, that action alone may cause some abandonment/separation anxiety issues for a while hence. The parents were only in custody for 3 hrs. Hmmm....it's the extremeness of the action. It is extreme to arrest both parents and take the child into foster care when one parent would do or allowing them to make arrangements with someone the child knew such as a grandparent, aunt, or close friend would have mitigated some of the potential side effects to the child.

 

It's the lack of common sense exercised on behalf of the well-being of the child that is the issue that people are reacting to and not the crime itself. Yep, they stole - no problem with someone getting in trouble for this. But, the reaction to that must also take into account the well being of innocent parties. It was beyond unnecessary to put the child through this. Other actions that did not include traumatizing a toddler would have satisfied the need for legal justice.

 

Even if it was a t.v. or something, shoplifting is still not a crime in which one makes the leap that the parents are a danger to their child and should therefore both be arrested at the same time and the child taken into protective custody. One can be arrested, the other can make arrangements for the safe care of the child with a family member or friend and then through their attorney, surrender to the police. This is done all the time for lower level crimes.

 

Our legal system ranks crime by severity and it should. Prioritizing action and resources allocated to those actions is very important. This did not rank the severity of action, not even close.

 

Faith

[Joker]

Even if it was a t.v. or something, shoplifting is still not a crime in which one makes the leap that the parents are a danger to their child and should therefore both be arrested at the same time and the child taken into protective custody. One can be arrested, the other can make arrangements for the safe care of the child with a family member or friend and then through their attorney, surrender to the police. This is done all the time for lower level crimes.

 

Our legal system ranks crime by severity and it should. Prioritizing action and resources allocated to those actions is very important. This did not rank the severity of action, not even close.

 

Faith

 

...or for celebrities :001_rolleyes:

[LidiyaDawn]

For those who believe in the that it was totally overboard, that the couple was, in fact, innocent, that it was no big deal:

 

Would you feel the same way about an item(s) with a bigger price tag? Let's say a couple made their way out of a store with a hand held electronic toy (one they had given their child to play with in the store), and the $100 device got inadvertantly hidden during check out?

 

What is the cut-off, standard or dividing line for you?

 

That they were new in town, pregnant, with a toddler?

That they offered to pay (that is the least convincing for me, btw - who *wouldn't offer to pay in that circumstance)?

That the items totaled about $5?

That eating in stores is, at least in some cases, encouraged?

 

To me, they stole. It might not have been intentional. But they DID. Even if eating in that store is okay, encouraged, and sanctioned. They stole. At what point is the Store Manager and Police supposed to know and act on intent of other people? Is a $5 theft less of a theft? So much so that it is not theft?

 

See - maybe I'm weird because I don't see that "they stole" … I see an accident. A mistake. They forgot to ring through the wrappers. It happens.

 

With the details we've been given, I just don't see it as "stealing"… to me, that requires intent.

 

 

[and i do think that even if someone *intended* to steal, the circumstances should be considered when handling it. life isn't black and white.]

[Guest submarines]

For those who believe in the that it was totally overboard, that the couple was, in fact, innocent, that it was no big deal:

 

Would you feel the same way about an item(s) with a bigger price tag? Let's say a couple made their way out of a store with a hand held electronic toy (one they had given their child to play with in the store), and the $100 device got inadvertantly hidden during check out?

 

What is the cut-off, standard or dividing line for you?

 

That they were new in town, pregnant, with a toddler?

That they offered to pay (that is the least convincing for me, btw - who *wouldn't offer to pay in that circumstance)?

That the items totaled about $5?

That eating in stores is, at least in some cases, encouraged?

 

To me, they stole. It might not have been intentional. But they DID. Even if eating in that store is okay, encouraged, and sanctioned. They stole. At what point is the Store Manager and Police supposed to know and act on intent of other people? Is a $5 theft less of a theft? So much so that it is not theft?

 

It wasn't a big deal exactly because of the combination of factors. When the world is black or white only, then yes, they stole and should be punished.

 

But a black and white world is neither kind or humane. Human beings are typically able to use discretion and common sense. When those are routinely ignored the world becomes quite ugly, imo.

[LidiyaDawn]

It wasn't a big deal exactly because of the combination of factors. When the world is black or white only, then yes, they stole and should be punished.

 

But a black and white world is neither kind or humane. Human beings are typically able to use discretion and common sense. When those are routinely ignored the world becomes quite ugly, imo.

 

Well said, especially the bolded.

[Harriet Vane]

It wasn't a big deal exactly because of the combination of factors. When the world is black or white only, then yes, they stole and should be punished.

 

But a black and white world is neither kind or humane. Human beings are typically able to use discretion and common sense. When those are routinely ignored the world becomes quite ugly, imo.

 

:iagree:

[Jennifer3141]

It wasn't a big deal exactly because of the combination of factors. When the world is black or white only, then yes, they stole and should be punished.

 

But a black and white world is neither kind or humane. Human beings are typically able to use discretion and common sense. When those are routinely ignored the world becomes quite ugly, imo.

 

 

:iagree::iagree: Awesome post!!!

[twoxcell]

I think it's crazy that they took their daughter away over this and I would be livid and make a complaint, but the parents could have easily avoided this mess if they had been more conscientious. The food at a grocery store isn't yours to eat until you buy it (I know that depends on the store and there are exceptions), so if you're going to snack while you're shopping it's your responsibility not to forget to pay for it—period. With food prices what they are now, it's not like they had tons of other groceries in their cart if the total was only $50. I would guess that the majority of people who are stopped for shoplifting claim they simply "forgot" to pay, so the store policies can't make exceptions for everyone who claims they didn't mean to steal or has a plausible-sounding excuse. Still, especially for food items that are eaten in the store, I don't see why a store couldn't make a policy to accept immediate payment and not report it to the police.

 

:iagree:

I never eat or open anything I haven't paid for. I have accidentily walked out of the store with something in my cart that was missed at checkout. Everytime that happened I simply walked right back into the store and payed for the item.

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's not the dollar amount that makes this situation over-the-top, it's the response of the manager. He was given options that still would have resulted in parents being arrested and charged, but would NOT have resulted in the child being taken away. He refused *any* option, but having the child taken away and the parents arrested on. the. spot.

 

And, while honest mistakes happen often (and it's not about the price), people should be given an opportunity to correct them.

 

I've been a store owner whose store was ripped off quite frequently. People were stealing STICKERS (expensive stickers, but still STICKERS). We have prosecuted for shoplifting. We have also given a person the benefit of the doubt, and taken payment.

 

In this case, the store had a deli cash-register that was unmanned. The people attempted to pay then and there, but they couldn't and decided to wait (I don't know where the other registers were, but I'm guessing they were more than a few steps away). If their account is true, I'm sure there is a nice video shot of them at the deli cash register looking around, and then walking away. They didn't throw the wrappers away. They sounded pretty embarrassed. And, IMO, the POLICE were on their side (they asked the manager not to prosecute, etc...), and were embarrassed to be arresting the couple. IMO, the POLICE would not have made those suggestions (having more experience dealing with crafty shoplifters), if they felt it was *anything* than an honest mistake.

 

So no... the dollar amount wouldn't have mattered. Police usually have a 6th sense about these things, although concealing a $100 toy a child was playing with would be a pretty neat trick.

 

I had missed the part about the police offering different scenarios and the store manager refusing them until the last couple of pages of this thread. That does change my mind a bit about this situation. (I still think it's an unwise thing to eat before paying, though.)

 

What I don't understand is why the store manager had so much power over how the police handled it? (This is a question out of ignorance of how these things work.)

[Wendi]

I don't. :D

 

I've been on the receiving end of store managers who feel the need to "throw their weight around." And even when nothing illegal actually happen not receive an apology, or the manager even back down. 'Course I wound up going up the chain later and the manager was "removed" from her position. ;)

 

So no, a store manager going to the extreme of prosecuting both parents, insisting that they BOTH be arrested at the SAME time, and forcing the police to put their child into protective custody for the accused "theft" of a 2-for-1 sandwich special totaling $5... strikes me more as a store manager who was on a power trip.

 

The above were reportedly options given the store manager to deal with it... not prosecute, or even arrest one now and arrest one later (thus eliminating the CPS issue), but the store manager refused.

 

Even if the store had some sort of zero-tolerance policy, the police gave the store manager a viable alternative, which would have met the "letter" of the arguable "store policy" of zero-tolerance (both parties being arrested), and he insisted that they BOTH be arrested at. that. time.

 

How do you know this? I didn't read anywhere that the manager knew these were all options and steadfastly insisted on both being arrested and the child going to CPS.

 

Also, we are taking this couple's word for all this. It is *possible* that they intentionally hid the wrappers so that they could be easily overlooked, but if they were confronted, they could then "find" them and say it was a mistake. We really don't know. Nor do we know how the couple behaved when confronted. The security people may well have observed a lot more than has been shared publicly.

 

Wendi

[Jean in Newcastle]

How do you know this? I didn't read anywhere that the manager knew these were all options and steadfastly insisted on both being arrested and the child going to CPS.

 

Also, we are taking this couple's word for all this. It is *possible* that they intentionally hid the wrappers so that they could be easily overlooked, but if they were confronted, they could then "find" them and say it was a mistake. We really don't know. Nor do we know how the couple behaved when confronted. The security people may well have observed a lot more than has been shared publicly.

 

Wendi

 

Yes, I didn't see it in the article. The thing is, corporations are limited somewhat in what they can say about situations because of concerns that they will be sued, or because they want to keep certain things private (like perhaps their security arrangements). But individuals can say all sorts of things and seem to get away with it.

[LisaKinVA]

It's mentioned here...

 

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/15896456/couple-arrested-for-forgetting-to-pay-for-sandwiches

 

and here...

 

http://www.ktsm.com/local/couple-arrested-after-forgetting-to-pay-for-grocery-store-sandwiches.

 

There was another one, but it may have been her baby center post that had some more of "her side."

 

And, in several articles, Safeway admitted they may have mishandled the situation AFTER reviewing the situation. They apparently haven't decided whether or not to actually prosecute this case. FWIW, the couple was also banned from the store for a year too. BUT, that may be just a standard store policy as well (they were escorted back to the store after their release to get their groceries).

 

Also, IME, if the store had a pretty good leg to stand on, the talk from Safeway would be, "we stand behind the actions of the store manager...blah, blah, blah."

[RoughCollie]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20129057/safeway-drops-charges-in-parents-sandwich-theft/

 

Charges dropped; couple no longer banned from store.

[LisaKinVA]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20129057/safeway-drops-charges-in-parents-sandwich-theft/

 

Charges dropped; couple no longer banned from store.

 

Dang. You beat me to it. ;) They also apologized.

[kalanamak]

 

Now - I agree that the store seemed to take this too far. But we don't really know the situation as it played out. We weren't observing them as mostly likely store personnel were for some time before they even walked out that door (otherwise how would they even know that there was a wrapper stuck down there in the cart). We don't know how it really played out (facial expressions, tone of voice etc.) when they were confronted. All of those things add up to a gut reaction for how a manager handles something. We also don't know how it played out once the police were called in. Yes, the store says that they regret what happened but we really don't know what that means either - do they regret the bad publicity or do they really think that the store manager came down hard on innocent people who just forgot to pay for some sandwiches?

 

So arrest one and let the other take the kid home. You could even ask which one wanted to go home and which one wanted to stay.

[Jean in Newcastle]

So arrest one and let the other take the kid home. You could even ask which one wanted to go home and which one wanted to stay.

 

In later posts (with links from other articles) people have said that the police gave the store manager that option. I asked before (and still don't know) why it was up to the store manager but I assume it must be something related to him wishing to press charges.